![]() |
Real Estate News and Advice |
July 24, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
DOJ Intent Leaks Ahead Of Meeting With NAR, DOJ Denies Leak
by Blanche Evans
Ahead of a scheduled meeting this week between the National Association of Realtors' legal team and the Department of Justice investigators looking into the NAR's virtual office website policy, a leak informed the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) of the DOJ's possible intent to file an anti-trust suit against the NAR. Unnamed attorneys "close to the case" told WSJ reporters that the DOJ "is expected" to charge that the NAR "illegally adopted practices intended to stifle Internet-based rivals and discounters." The almost-a-story made front page news. The NAR bylaw, insinuates the WSJ report, "would allow its more than 1.2 million members to withhold property listings from online brokers." The story, inflammatory in its implications, concerns the NAR's virtual office website (VOW) policy, which outlines rules for MLSs to set its members up to display listings on each other's websites using listings direct from the MLS database. Because state laws do not allow brokers to take another broker's listings and advertise them without permission, the NAR VOW rules suggest that brokers should have the right to restrict the blanket use of their listings by competitors. Otherwise, the MLS tail is wagging the broker dog. The NAR maintains that it is facilitating virtual office websites for all brokers by helping MLSs establish rules to follow that are fair to all concerned, not just the smaller, newer or discount brokers who depend on other people's listings to build business. Like the mask of Oz, a VOW is an advertisement. When strengthened by the generous addition of other brokers' listings, a VOW can make any broker operating it appear larger and more powerful than he or she really is. Both the NAR and the DOJ deny any knowledge of the WSJ story, which may have been planted to make the NAR back down before talks with the DOJ, scheduled this week. Also on the calendar is a highly publicized visit from the President of the United States, George W. Bush, who will speak to the 8,500 Realtors gathered for the NAR's mid-year convention in Washington, on Friday, May 13th, at a special session. "There's no such thing as coincidence," observes Steve Cook, spokesperson for the NAR. "It will be interesting to have the President speaking to us Friday morning after all this talk." Cook says the DOJ attorneys have not said they were filing suit, and that it is professional legal courtesy to tell the other side if such a suit were pending. "We have been in negotiations with the DOJ for two years since the first civil investigation demand (CID) was issued," says Cook. "They have not called us to let us know they are filing papers. We are meeting with them this week." Is this a dirty trick to make the NAR back down ahead of scheduled discussions with the DOJ? "It doesn't make it any easier," concedes Cook, "but we are adamant that our position is the right one, and we are legally correct and that it is a principle worth fighting for. Maybe the DOJ wanted to test our confidence. The issue is the broker's rights to market properties for their clients -- the intellectual property of listings. Those people who find the customer, work to put the listing together and create the marketing plan to market the property should have the right to advertise their listing where and how they wish." Meanwhile, the DOJ denies leaking the story. Gina Talamona, spokesperson for DOJ, says, "Our investigation is ongoing, but as to who leaked that to the WSJ, we have no clue. The antitrust division is investigating the potential competitive impact of certain rules involving the display of residential real estate listing data over the Internet. We aren't saying who we are investigating or what action we may or may not take." In the WSJ story, it says that "lawyers close to the case" said that "The Justice Department is expected to charge that the NAR, in a proposed 2003 bylaw (the virtual office website policy) illegally adopted practices intended to stifle Internet-based rivals and discounters." "It doesn't say Federal lawyers," points out Talamona. "It's not coming from here. I'm confirming what I'm giving you." She also notes that the WSJ took liberties with her quote in the story, saying that she declined to comment on the "timing of any legal action." "I haven't talked about whether there would be any legal action," says Talamona. "I would never comment on that kind of thing. I don't even confirm to anyone who we may or may not be investigating." If "lawyers" working for either discount brokers or third-party service providers are attempting to influence the outcome of the discussions, their plan worked as far as getting more exposure for the issue. Reuters and numerous other media have picked up the story, making the NAR and its members look bad nationwide. But the strategy could backfire. An old saying goes, "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it." Discount and third-party vendors with a stake in the issue may find that the competitors they so desperately want to share listings could leave them with nothing:
Published: May 10, 2005 Use of this article without permission is a violation of federal copyright laws. Related Articles:
|
Real Estate News Network
Today's Real Estate Outlook
Spotlight
Today's Headlines
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
for Agents
Readers' Choice
|
||||||||||||||||||